NARNIA! NARNIA! NARNIA!

[Imrahil]

I have to agree with Luvian on this one. The cinematography was nice & the non-human characters looked cool, but the story was weak. So maybe the kids are the key to a prophecy, but once the snow had vanished, there's really no need to make them generals. Just hide them away, keep them safe, & let the real leaders do what needs to be done.

The oldest kid may be the worst general ever. He gave up the high ground against a larger force, outrunning his archers who could have had a field day shooting the bad guys before they even closed the distance.

The Witch was a badass, but painfully stupid. Too bad she couldn't read the runes on the sacrificial stone that *were right in front of her*. If all 4 kids are necessary for the prophecy, why not just off Edmund ASAP?

Why didn't the little girl's magic potion heal the cut on Edmund's lip? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'd say it's probably worth renting once it comes out on DVD, but not worth a trip to the movies.

- Imrahil

[wellard]

Originally posted by Szass-Tam: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I read a review this morning that said they toned Down Aslan's death to the point that it wasn't even that emotional anymore. Any truth in that?

I think they wanted to play down the Christian references. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought the Christian references where 'in your face' all the time. Was that a true reflection of C.S.Lewis work or trying to protect the film from the Christian burn book brigade that tried so hard to hurt the Harry Potter franchise?

[wellard]

<font color="light green">Sorry Luvian, nothing personal but I feel that I must savage your critic... Just a difference of opinion mate </font>

Originally posted by Luvian: So I've just seen it last night. The main characters didn't face and defeat their enemy, <font color="light green"> Yes they did, if you view there inner doubts and desires and not the white witch as there enemy </font> there was no final confrontation. Someone else wander around to effortlessly and instantly defeat the enemy for them. <font color="light green"> Christian story, Aslan as Jesus Christ, is resurrected and saves the world not 3 children </font> The ending was weak and unbelievable. You're telling me characters that spent the whole movie complaining about how they missed their parents and wanted to see them again, the characters that didn't want to stay and help narnia, just forgot about their parents and their world for 20 years!?! <font color="light green"> During the war children (like my mother) where sent away from home into the countryside for over 3years. Fathers went away for upto five years and never returned until the world was put right, you just got on with life, I did not see a problem with this. </font> There were also other things that seemed wrong. For example, the two boys had no idea how to fight with weapons, they never did before. They are given swords, and suddenly they can hold their own and defeat orcs, ogres and wathever else is thrown at them as if they were the best swordsmans in the land. <font color="light green"> Yet you play D&D where a magic sword can turn an ordinary fighter into a killing machine and you accept that?? [img]smile.gif[/img] </font> Then there were the girls. They made a big scenes of each of the kids getting gifts. The eldest is given a bow "that will rarely miss", the youngest a knife, so that she can defend herself. The eldest shot the bow once, in a no stress situation after the fighting was over, <font color="light green"> and being a magic bow it did as it was designed to do [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font> and the youngest never used her knife. <font color="light green"> ermm... yes she did </font> You never make a point of a character receiving an item of you don't build on this. That's a loose plot thread. <font color="light green">Not really because all 3 items IMO where used and where important. </font> I mentioned this part before, but it's just too much, so I have to go at it again. Every problems that happened along the movie were vanquished by something else than the main characters. A fox saved them, a dam saved them, nameless and faceless soldiers freed one. The list goes on. They were not so much prophecysed heroes as spectators. Oh, I usually hate talking about physical appearance, because it's really rude, but have to do it this time. I really don't like how those kids look. <font color="light green"> ??? They looked like fine Anglo Saxon children to me???</font>

[Luvian]

Well here is my reply [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by wellard: <font color="light green">Sorry Luvian, nothing personal but I feel that I must savage your critic... Just a difference of opinion mate </font> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Luvian: So I've just seen it last night. The main characters didn't face and defeat their enemy, <font color="light green"> Yes they did, if you view there inner doubts and desires and not the white witch as there enemy </font> <font color="dark red">This is not fufilling enough for me. Characters usually fix the problems of their adventure AND grow up, they don't just watch someone do the fighting for them and just grow up. If I had just wanted to see a movie about self doubts I would have watched a drama.</font> there was no final confrontation. Someone else wander around to effortlessly and instantly defeat the enemy for them. <font color="light green"> Christian story, Aslan as Jesus Christ, is resurrected and saves the world not 3 children </font> <font color="dark red">Interesting metaphor but it doesn't make an interesting adventure scenario.</font> The ending was weak and unbelievable. You're telling me characters that spent the whole movie complaining about how they missed their parents and wanted to see them again, the characters that didn't want to stay and help narnia, just forgot about their parents and their world for 20 years!?! <font color="light green"> During the war children (like my mother) where sent away from home into the countryside for over 3years. Fathers went away for upto five years and never returned until the world was put right, you just got on with life, I did not see a problem with this. </font> <font color="dark red">What I'm refering to is that at the end of the movie we see the characters again, but they are now in their 20s and have forgotten about their real world. Unrealistic</font> There were also other things that seemed wrong. For example, the two boys had no idea how to fight with weapons, they never did before. They are given swords, and suddenly they can hold their own and defeat orcs, ogres and wathever else is thrown at them as if they were the best swordsmans in the land. <font color="light green"> Yet you play D&D where a magic sword can turn an ordinary fighter into a killing machine and you accept that?? [img]smile.gif[/img] </font> <font color="dark red">A campaign in which a level 1 character can turn into an experienced fighter by simply getting a sword is called a maunty haul campaign and I stay away from them.</font> Then there were the girls. They made a big scenes of each of the kids getting gifts. The eldest is given a bow "that will rarely miss", the youngest a knife, so that she can defend herself. The eldest shot the bow once, in a no stress situation after the fighting was over, <font color="light green"> and being a magic bow it did as it was designed to do [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font> <font color="dark red">But it did it too late in a boring and anti-climatic manner.</font> and the youngest never used her knife. <font color="light green"> ermm... yes she did </font><font color="dark red">I must have missed it, when did she use the knife? Did she even fight or do anything adventurous?</font> You never make a point of a character receiving an item of you don't build on this. That's a loose plot thread. <font color="light green">Not really because all 3 items IMO where used and where important. </font><font color="dark red">The bow was not important, anyone could have finished that guy. I never saw the knife get used, and the life bottle was really obvious the moment they got it, but hey, at least it was used.</font> I mentioned this part before, but it's just too much, so I have to go at it again. Every problems that happened along the movie were vanquished by something else than the main characters. A fox saved them, a dam saved them, nameless and faceless soldiers freed one. The list goes on. They were not so much prophecysed heroes as spectators. Oh, I usually hate talking about physical appearance, because it's really rude, but have to do it this time. I really don't like how those kids look. <font color="light green"> ??? They looked like fine Anglo Saxon children to me???</font> <font color="dark red">Then I guess I'm used to american children???</font>

</font>[/QUOTE]

[ 01-15-2006, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

[wellard]

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] read your reply Luvian, I will admit I do not think the film was as good as it could be. 3 1/2 stars out of five from me. The main points off were for no blood and gore in the battles and the 5 mile charge across open ground by both sides before battle is engaged. I think the little girl was by far the best actor, I did not warm to the others.



goes off to learn what a maunty haul is.....

[Luvian]

Yeah, I didn't like the acting of the older kids too much. Oh well, it's their first one, they'll get better in the sequels.

[CerebroDragon]

That's a pretty silly end to the review Luvian, I mean complaining about the physical appearances of children? Bit superficial, don't you think? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I also don't think its generally a good idea to be imposing any kind of rules upon what you expect a narrative to do from some amateur chump's 101 tips on how to write a novel. This is an interpretation of a C.S Lewis novel after all in a visual form.
Logic this and logic that to the nine hells!
This was a fantasy adventure which I was more than pleased to lose myself in.

I saw it today and immediately fell into a child-like state with its emphasis on their point of view. Admittedly it is following in the tailcoat of LoTR's success, but any other comparisons I think other than the CGI battle sequences are a bit tediously unnecessary. They're different films, and treat many themes differently. Enough said.

There was something refreshingly conservative and naive about the children I really liked and connected with. Their apperances were completely suitable too in the context of the film's backdrop.

Also, I really enjoyed the soundtrack which I think assisted the film's sense of journey and the emotional subjectivity very nicely indeed.

Does one really need to impose adult analytical consciousness over a film like this?
I asked myself this question quite a few times as my petty small grievances over the references to the christian mythos kept rolling over my mind. Other petty gripes would be the Witch's gradual descension into a David Bowie/Labyrinth crossed with Cate Blanchett doing Galadriel pantomime, the pompous glow of Peter's demeanour, and Aslan's unfortunately short dialogue about the nature of sacrifice. (Thank you, Lord British!)

I found the film very heart warming to be honest. I went into the cinema feeling a little down and even found myself crying a couple of times, which was unusual for me.
So it was pleasing to come out of the experience with my sense of wonder in reality somewhat restored and my mind refreshed. [img]smile.gif[/img] Lucy was quite brilliant and was definitely my favourite character too.

If I saw it again, it might potentially corrupt my child-like first hand experience of it with cold adult logic and rationality - so I might hold off for awhile. Interested in hearing how you found it the second time, Illumina. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-18-2006, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: CerebroDragon ]

[Luvian]

Originally posted by CerebroDragon: That's a pretty silly end to the review Luvian, I mean complaining about the physical appearances of children? Bit superficial, don't you think? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

That comment wasn't part of my review but more of a personnal remark, I also said I thought it was rude. I'm trying not to explain what I didn't like about them because that could get offending, so let's leave it at that.

I also don't think its generally a good idea to be imposing any kind of rules upon what you expect a narrative to do from some amateur chump's 101 tips on how to write a novel.

The guides I'm refering to are published books written by authors and editors. Beleive it or not, there is more to writing than just putting some words down on paper.

This is an interpretation of a C.S Lewis novel after all in a visual form. Logic this and logic that to the nine hells!

It doesn't matter if it's an interpretation or not. The problem was with the plot itself, and I'm pretty sure the plot was the same in both the novel and movie. I'd say that the reason the books were so successfull back then is that they are highly visual and fantastic, back when it was written high fantasy wasn't so common so this awed people.

I saw it today and immediately fell into a child-like state with its emphasis on their point of view. Admittedly it is following in the tailcoat of LoTR's success, but any other comparisons I think other than the CGI battle sequences are a bit tediously unnecessary. They're different films, and treat many themes differently. Enough said.

They centainly have very little in common, we can agree on that.

Does one really need to impose adult analytical consciousness over a film like this?

I didn't try to analyse the plot, but it has weaknesses and I saw them. They were so obvious to me they couldn't be ignored.

[Klorox]

Originally posted by wellard: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Szass-Tam: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I read a review this morning that said they toned Down Aslan's death to the point that it wasn't even that emotional anymore. Any truth in that?

I think they wanted to play down the Christian references. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought the Christian references where 'in your face' all the time. Was that a true reflection of C.S.Lewis work or trying to protect the film from the Christian burn book brigade that tried so hard to hurt the Harry Potter franchise? </font>[/QUOTE]It was a downplayed reflection of C.S. Lewis' work. After reading these books, you can't help but see the religious connotations, and there are more in the books than in the movie.

BTW, (book spoiler here): The reason the professor is so interested in the children's story, and believes Lucy is that he was there when Narnia was created. He built the wardrobe out of a tree that grew from a magical apple core from Narnia that Aslan asked him to get.

Also, Illumina is right, the Witch should have had black hair. There is no "waterfall saving our butts" scene in the book either, that's where Peter kills the Wolf right away.

The movie was pretty close to the book though. I just wish it was a little less slow at the beginning, and I wish they got a cuter kid to play Lucy. Peter and Susan should have been younger, IIRC.

Originally posted by Luvian: It doesn't matter if it's an interpretation or not. The problem was with the plot itself, and I'm pretty sure the plot was the same in both the novel and movie. I'd say that the reason the books were so successfull back then is that they are highly visual and fantastic, back when it was written high fantasy wasn't so common so this awed people.

It's a children's book. The point of it is to be entertaining and teach kids a lesson.

I think we can all agree that it's entertaining, and the lesson is a more fun way of looking at the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe or not, like it or not, that's the way C.S. Lewis wrote and intended it!

[ 01-22-2006, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Klorox ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I didn't care for that waterfall business at all. I also didn't care for the Susan-Peter interaction in that scene. Were that in the actual book, I would have some fairly critical things to say about biblical references and gender. Fortunately, it's all Hollywood.

And yes, at the end of the day, Klorox is correct. If you find that morality is black and white, it's a children's book. If it's unrealistic, it's a children's book.